Posted
by
timothy
on Friday March 11, 2016 @10:00AM
from the whereas-maintaining-a-monarchy dept.

cold fjord writes: Steven Hawking, 150 fellows of the Royal Society (three Nobel laureates among them), and the Astronomer Royal, are warning that exit from the EU by the UK could be a disaster for science in the UK. An immediate issue would be restrictions on travel and how that would result in scientists from around the EU no longer coming to the UK to work. That would make the UK less competitive for new talent. It would also mean that scientists in the EU with grant money would be less likely to bring their research and grant money to the UK to perform their work. Switzerland is listed as an example of the resulting harm. The scientists make the point that freedom of travel for scientists is as important for science as free trade is for economies.

So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK. The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.

So balance that out with some incentives to lure talent and research to the UK.

This is not about attracting talent to UK - we are pretty good at doing that already, thanks to top level scientists like Stephen Hawking, just to mention one at random. But the EU fund a lot of very important research in UK, and a lot of cooperation in research and education would not happen, or would be significantly different outside EU.

The EU will never have the political will to get its act together and the UK similarly will not have the will to deal with the migrant crisis that will continue as long as they maintain open borders.

Won't they? I don't know what that actually means: 'getting its act together'. As far as I can see, the purpose of EU has always been primarily to create an free trade region in Europe, and to harmonise rules and regulations in order to remove barriers to trade. You may not like the Schengen are, the Euro and the rules that are agreed in EU, but I don't think you can deny that they are demonstrations of the EU working to fulfill its purpose. What I don't like about EU is that it is not ambitious enough - we should strive for a full 'European Nation', not this free-trade++ area. I don't think any country would be in danger of losing its identity - on the contrary. Just look at how Scotland and Wales are very much not England, despite being part of Great Britain for centuries. Or look at how culturally diverse the US is; being in a close, political union clearly doesn't take away regional individuality.

I am not personally all that bothered about whether we stay or leave; I'm sure we will survive if we leave, but there are so many issues facing us, which require wide, regional cooperation, and the number will only continue to grow for much of this century. I feel convinced that, like it not, we will have to choose joining an ever closer union with our neighbours at some point. If EU falls apart, then it will something else at some point. Plus, of course, the internet is an excellent tool for reaching out across national boundaries; nationalism won't last in this environment. It will be good when it disappears.

Agreed. Actually it would be nice to have the option of voting for the status quo in the referendum, rather than just the option of a semi-detached membership (after Cameron's agreed 'reforms'), or out.

There is no way to become a major player in the EU - it's simply impossible. The UK routinely loses virtually all the voting positions it takes in the EU Parliament, so basically, it faces a choice between keeping its current positions and having no influence, or adopting the same positions as most of the other countries and by definition not having any influence.

To think that the UK, which is relatively right wing, can change the basic direction most of the other countries are travelling (relatively left w

What? The UK has neither a migrant crisis nor open borders. They stayed outside the Schengen agreement so they still have their borders manned by border control. Being an island also makes sneaking in difficult, see the Calais situation, thousands of migrants trying to get in illegally but can't.

For science? Never. It's a good thing CERN built their Superconducting SuperCollider out in Texas because those losers in Switzerland would have never been able to get their thumb out long enough to build that proposed Large Hadron Collider.

You will not get a lot of argument from me that the west has a large degree of culpability for the current probelms in Syria and Iraq but I have never understood the assertion that our primary motivation was oil. If all we cared about was oil we would have continued to support the despots that provided stability. Assad and Hussein were much better for business. Our actions while foolish cannot be attributed to greed. But it might be that I haven't thought this through as well as you. If you have an arugment to make I'm open to changing my mind.

Hussein made the mistake of attacking the USS Stark. Assad is still in business.

I think that was the least of his sins. (And the events bore a disturbing resemblance to, for instance, the Gulf of Tonkin false flag incident which was used to justify US involvement in Vietnam).

Far more important is that Saddam Hussein was planning to sell Iraqi oil for euros (and perhaps other currencies, or gold). All national governments have multiple overlapping goals and agendas - the current US government more than most, as it has unilaterally extended its sphere of influence and its interests worldwide.

The pursuit of reliable, cheap sources of oil and gas is most certainly an important motive. Others include support for Israel ("ask not what Israel can do for you; ask rather what you can do for Israel") and the strong desire to prevent any other nations from being strong and independent enough to ignore commands from Washington.

But by far the strongest motive of all is the need to maintain the US dollar as the principal world reserve currency. This is largely, though not entirely, dependent on the petrodollar, which in turns requires that all (or nearly all) wholesale purchases of oil are made with dollars. Anyone who tries to start selling large quantities of oil for any other currency can expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice, if that is at all possible. The use of another currency across a large area of the world is also likely to bring one's earthly existence to a rapid close, as Colonel Qadafi found. He was planning to introduce a gold dinar as a common currency throughout Africa. Since his death that idea has been forgotten, and the very large amount of gold that he had obtained with a view to minting coins has vanished. Who knows where it may have gone? It might be unwise to inquire too closely.

Today we are seeing very large and powerful nations like China, Russia, and the other BRICS nations, as well as Iran, making arrangements to trade on a very large scale in currencies other than the dollar. Gold, too, is making a reappearance as the BRICS and many Asian nations accumulate it as fast as possible. It has always been considered impossible to "get out of" the dollar, as doing so would cause any nation's huge dollar reserves to lose value, or become entirely worthless. However, some nations now seem ready to take that hit.

The big question is whether Washington, confronted with decision makers who cannot be eliminated without nuclear war, will stop short of that line.

Keeping the dollar as the primary reserve currency is absolutely vital to the US government, as otherwise they would instantly be bankrupt. Hasn't it struck you how odd it is that the USA, alone among nations, never has to worry about the cost of anything? Oh yes, they skimp on healthcare and social security and highway repairs and bridge maintenance and all those boring everyday things. But there is never a problem finding another trillion dollars for "defence" (i.e. killing people in Asia), or $5 billion

but I have never understood the assertion that our primary motivation was oil.

The people that have been saying "war for oil" arent saying something understandable. Instead of presenting reason, they are making a very shallow attempt to win over the listener on a purely emotional level.

Any drop in production within the middle east is a big win for oil companies that dont drop production, which includes all the U.S. oil companies.

You will not get a lot of argument from me that the west has a large degree of culpability for the current probelms in Syria and Iraq but I have never understood the assertion that our primary motivation was oil. If all we cared about was oil we would have continued to support the despots that provided stability.

If you look at the big picture, you might realize that yes, the West does support strong dictators that provide lots of oil - specifically, Saudi Arabia (and the other countries of the Arab peninsula to a slightly lesser extent). Saudi Arabia is a Sunni country that is in every way like ISIS, all the way to rampant de facto slavery of whoever is not a Sunni Muslim, beheading of apostates and gays, no-go areas for non-Muslims, child brides. Saudi Arabia wouldn't lift a finger against ISIS, but went full-banshee against insurgents in Yemen - because they are Shia, and it is mostly the civilians that are dying during Saudi air raids. All this the West just sees and ignores. Let's not forget that Saudi Arabia is chairing the Human Rights committe at the UN. So, from a further perspective, it does seem that Saudi Arabia is receiving support. Why? I see no other answer but because of the immense power they hold because of the crude oil production capacity and reserves the Saudis hold.

So without evidence you are leaping to an unfounded conclusion that condemns millions of people to a miserable, frequently dangerous future. I hope if you and your loved ones are in need people don't judge the ever-loving shit out of you the same way you seem more than happy to do to others.

From the link The two are intricately linked: if science were not a public good then there should be no tax subsidy to it. If it is a public good then it doesn’t matter who does it nor where. It’s not possible to then claim that it must have the subsidy and it must be done in Britain or by Britons. The one point precludes the other.

It makes the assumption that if science can be done anywhere then it doesn't matter where. The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.

I think the article is just looking for an excuse to make some ink, and has no real thought behind it.

The article totally misses that science is a collaborative field that works by communication and working with differing mind sets. Travel makes this much easier.

So does the internet. Scientists would be high up on the list of people allowed to come to the UK so I don't see a problem. If anything being out of the EU and free to do things the EU bans, such as experimenting with GM food, the state of science could be much better in the UK being free to pursue more fields and free of the red tape being in the EU requires.

But those scientists would now have to deal with the bureaucracy of visas, which is a real PITA for day-to-day business (that affects every sector).

And yes, the UK might then be free of stupid EU regulations, but then they'd also be at risk of stupid Government regulations. The EU is the only protection citizens have against governments forcing through controversial bills - the UK's current Conservative government wanting to scrap the Human Rights Act so they can ship their bogeymen off to get tortured is o

You mean like how British citizens have to deal with the bureaucracy of visas when they visit America? They don't, and there's no particular reason the UK would have to make it hard for scientists to visit.

The EU is the only protection citizens have against governments forcing through controversial bills

This is the crux of the matter. Some people believe the EU is a better government than their own and want the UK to stay in for that exact reason - so the (relatively right wing) British government constant

Or do you think none of the EU legislation is "forced through" or "controversial"?

It's a damn slight harder & requires more consensus than for a national government alone.

One of the arguments against the EU is that it's a slow bureaucratic behemoth to get anything done, however that's also one of its upsides - a party can't just get into power & then rush to force whatever it wants on its citizens, major legislation changes will often take more than one election to get through. Something that can be quite important to calm the volatility of democracies that don't have the protect

Have you ever tried to get a visa to immigrate to the UK from outside the EU? It's not at all easy, even if you meet all the requirements and have a sponsor. It's even worse if you want to bring your family.

Realistically the UK won't opt out of freedom of movement even if it leaves the EU. There are over 2 million British people living in the EU who would be forced to apply for visas or return if we did. The flood of millions of unemployed, often retired and dependent on benefits, and in need of housing would cause some pretty severe problems.

There's lots of comments on Reddit and elsewhere decrying the potential loss of EU funding for science and a multitude of other projects in the event of Brexit.

What people seem oblivious to is where this money comes from. Governments collect money from taxpayers, which hands it over to Brussels who then take a huge cut to fund the European Commission, the EU Parliament and all of its trappings. Estimates I've seen is a 50% cut just to fund the body that does the funding.

Surely Science would benefit more if they cut out the (extremely bloated) middleman and was funded directly by government?

In an ideal world, yes; but someone has to collect the taxes and decide where the money goes. My problem is having that money go through two governments, one of which is the grossly inefficient, if not borderline corrupt EU.

The piece of information that you are missing is that the UK has already gutted its internal research funding. The UK government is not going to suddenly become more friendly to science funding even if the need to pay the EU goes away. As far as I know, one of the few good sources of academic research funding in the UK currently is from the EU.

Lack of government funding should be a matter for parliament and the electorate. We can use our vote and lobby MPs and civil servants. If the EU dropped funding for a project would you have the same influence? Would you even know who to write to?

One of the biggest problems that Americans face when talking about stripping power from our Federal government is that people forget that they can do things locally. It is a bizarre form of mental atrophy.

If the UK is currently sending $100 to the EU for science, and getting $50 back, or $60 or whatever, there are two options on what to do after quitting the EU.

Option one, the one you seem to be advocating, is to stand around whining that you don't know how to spend money on science.

Problem is that the funding via the EU probably goes where it is needed. If the government didn't have EU contributions then they wouldn't give more to science funding and you're deluded if you think that it might. They also wouldn't use it to end austerity or increase NHS funding or anything that might be of benefit to the majority of people. It will be used to line the pockets of a select few and nothing more.

Brexit is a fad. It's even a FUD. It's all about the people not feeling they're getting the benefits out of what they'd hoped EU would be. I understand UK perfectly, they're on the giving end of EU, they're the ones that have to take the fall for Europes refugees (pretty much like Sweden, but on a bigger scale) and they're the ones with the most generous benefit rules and regulations. The thing is...that's not EU's fault, that's Britain on Benefits Fault, not EU as such. Cameron is right.

UK is important, very important, unfortunately they're not treated as such per generosity, so they need to do this to set an example. I hope you follow me so far. I'm in Sweden (but born Norwegian as if it had anything to do with it)...

Despite what some people will make you think, the UK has only agreed to take 20k Syrian refugees and has only taken the first tranche of those, a tiny fraction of what other European countries are taking. Compare that to a million on Germany or the immediate countries next to Syria who have taken on a third extra in terms of their total population.

Brexit is a fad. It's even a FUD. It's all about the people not feeling they're getting the benefits out of what they'd hoped EU would be.

No, that's quite wrong. It's mostly about the people noticing that their country is about to be one more brick cemented into a wall - a political union. And the whole thing is being run by some people who are very unpleasant, or very stupid (conceivably both). In the 1975 referendum I voted for the UK to be a member of the EU, and I recall very well what I expected. It was that Europe would become a single community in some senses, but governed democratically along the lines of the UK, France or Germany. In

Some of us like the EU. The problem with having the referendum now is that the average idiot on the street will vote based on temporary issues like the migrant crisis and outright lies like the classic "straight bananas".

The BBC should produce a series explaining how the EU works and what it actually does. At least then the result wouldn't be based mostly on ignorance.

While I agree that the EU has some real problems, I think what this is more about is that the 1%ers in the UK don't like the fact that they don't totally control politics because of EU rules and that the EU (more specifically EU courts) keep stepping in and stopping them stomping over ordinary citizens.

Yes, the UK does pay into the EU. But what's the net payment? It's much lower. If the UK goes Brexit, the UK will still have to follow many EU rules in order to trade with EU countries, but will have no influ

Ok look, we're in position 22 of 33 with something like one thirtieth of the rate of the worst affected country, and comfortably below the average. As a proportion of population, Sweden have to deal with far more refugees.

The UK is not the biggest recipient of refugees by a long shot. Greece is taking the brunt of it, as is Germany.

The ones trying to get to the UK will get to the UK easier if brexit happens - because the French might not care so much who is *leaving* their country, and potentially with UK Border Agency no longer present in France, there will be more non-EU immigrants getting into the UK illegally.

from Worstall. Yes, science's products are a public good, but doing science is not that same as having access to the results. Otherwise a lot of countries would be benefitting significantly from it which clearly are not. Just having scientists coming from other places and scientists returning from other places and live in the UK has a huge intangible benefit. Reading about an idea from elsewhere isn't at all the same as working with a person who hatched or worked with those who hatched the idea elsewhere.

The USA is not part of the EU and our scientists don't seem to have a problem traveling to and from the UK (with the exception of cost). Why would it be different for an EU country unless one is assuming that the other EU countries will make it difficult out of retaliation. But, that has as much potential to harm them as it would the UK.

I have great respect for Hawkings and the scientific community, but their expertise is in the various scientific fields they represent, not geo-politics or other areas they like to delve into (like meta-physics and theology). Yes, they are smart, but simply being smart does not make one correct in fields they are not experts in.

As for the retaliation, we won't know if that would be the case until the UK actually left the EU. Kind of like the status of a certain cat in a box.

So a guy who has noticed that easy border transits make his job easier than difficult border transits isn't qualified to say that changing from easy transit to difficult transit will make his job harder?

The key factor here is that EU is more like a kindergarten for laid-off politicians that are promoted up to the left. Unfortunately they have ended up in a pretty dangerous position for most citizens of Europe since they make decision about things that the lobbyists pushes for.

If Britain drops the EU, then they can become a Schengen country (if the others agree) or adopt Schengen like rules and make agreements as needed. Add that to custom tailored rules that incentivize the talent they need and want coming to Britain and they could adopt rules like Australia with benefits for those immigrating with needed skillets and "discouraging" others from permanent immigration. The EU is not the pinnacle of European governmental success. It is an experiment with socialism on a wide scale i

Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?

The Brexit discussion is far older then the migrant crisis, and is only barely related. It's about Britain wanting to remain a sovereign state. 150 successful scientists who have effectively worked for the government their whole lives support a stronger, larger central government? Hey, they're all smart guys, they know how the money flows in their field. But they're perhaps not in touch with the average guy upset that the government he votes for doesn't seem to represent him much. The migrant crisis is

It's about the impossible dream of total sovereignty. If we ditch the EU we will just end up being forced to adopt its rules, and more US rules, and do what China wants. Look how international trade agreements screw individual countries.

We will have more power and control if we engage with Europe and steer the EU. Like Germany does.

You're one of the strongest supporters of more centralized government power on Slashdot. Every thread I've seen you in vaguely related to politics or the economy, your answer is "more government power" regardless of the question.

Do you think it's even possible that the UK could get all the benefits it's going to from trade agreements, without having to concede power to the EU government on everything else? Or is that a bad question for you - do you see the UK benefiting in all ways from letting the EC bec

On a map of regions Britain has never invaded... there are three tiny spots, representing around 0.001% of the surface of the planet.

Considering there is basically nobody who hasn't at some point been invaded *by* Britain (and heard it was justified by the British claim to ancestral superiority) there is basically nobody who doesn't have the right to now go live in Britain peacefully. Calling migration and refugees an "invasion" is a ridiculous hyperboly for a nation whose historical approach to those thin

Who hasn't been an invader at anytime of his history anyway? All the people still alive today are from communities which at some point in time did invade a neighbor. Some were just more successful at that than others. If it weren't the Brits it would have been someone else anyway. As soon as resources are available due to some weakness of the owner the table is set for an invasion. We are just a bit more sophisticated at that today and are trying to secure them without too much war and without actual occupa

Whenever I read those stories about how powerful Japanese executives say they would pull their investments out of the UK if it left the EU, I aways want to ask them - if a small offshore isaland nation is so unviable - when Japan plans to become a province of China.

Secondly, appeal to authority fallacy much? Who cares what Stephen Hawkins thinks about the real world? He is totally divorced from reality (not his fault, but it's a fact nevertheless). How many times does he have to go down a street at night, in an 'enriched' area, and worry about being mugged or raped?

Hawking is talking about the the effect on science and research. Being one of them, he probably knows a good more about this particular subject that most; he will have had to work with international colleagues, taking part in programmes set up and funded by diverse international bodies etc. Hell. even I know enough about these things to feel that he isn't speaking out of turn, not by a mile.

As for your comment about 'enriched' areas - what do you actually know about that? The most dangerous areas in UK to walk out at night are normally in the socially deprived estates in some of the English cities, where contrary to your insinuations, most of the residents are ethnically British, who live on state benefits. I speak with some authority, I think - I live in an area of London with a very high proportion of immigrants: Hindus, Sikhs, Polish, Chinese, Muslims. I love it - it is a nice and safe area where people are consderate neighbours. So, you can stop your scaremongering.

Stephen Hawking. Weird how you anti-forrin types always have the same anti-intellectual attitudes. Bring on the stupid. If I wasn't unfortunate enough to live in one of your war conquests, I would fully support you dickheads leaving the EU just to enjoy the fireworks. Leaving the EU will make the UK irrelevant.

" Why should we care about their opinions more than they care about ours?" err...because without a strong science environment, you can kiss any future economic growth in a very competitive world goodbye? Don't believe me, look at the Asian countries and how much they devote to science. They get it, and you won't.

The problem is how do you have free trade if there is 26 different regulations on everything from the permitted additives to food, to what efficiency standards electrical products must meet.

In the end if it where not for the EU we would have a bunch of civil servants in Whitehall issuing very similar regulations to that which come out of Brussels. Now I admit we have had to change a whole bunch of regulations over the last 30 years as these have been harmonized, but we have been through 99% of that pain so why throw it out now for something that has already passed?

On this matter you have to ask yourself is it better to have a single set of regulations covering a much larger market or a minefield of regulations from 26 countries that it may well be impossible to comply with?

The other question to ask is are the sorts of free trade agreements that you might want with the EU available outside the EU without implementing all the regulations anyway? Clearly looking at countries in Europe outside the EU that is a big fat no.

I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves? I also wonder how abolition of roaming charges is the interests of the 1% either.

I also fail to understand how the working time directive is the agenda of the 1%. Surely the 1% would like to see us work unrestricted hours like a bunch of good little wage slaves?

The big supporters of brexit do seem to favour narrow interests. You just need to consider the ownership of the newspapers that most loudly proclaim how bad the EU is, to see that brexit is what the 1% want.

When it come to science it's not just movement that helps. Higher education establishment research funding from EU is 15% on top of what UK government gives and that would disappear after brexit. Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.

Ah, say brexit supporters, but if we didn't contribute to the EU then there would be more government money. Hah!, retorts any intelligent person who has paid attention to what this government is doing, the additional money will go into the pockets of a select few and not be spent on anything as frivolous as scientific research in establishments where a kid from a council estate could attend.

So, you don't like what the democratically elected government of the UK are doing (or what you think they will do) s

You can have free trade and maintain different regulations. All free trade means is that you don't place tariffs on imported goods. You're free to import into a country as long as you meet their safety requirements. It works very well for the US with most of its trade partners - where different standards exist for safety/regulatory requirements, but tariffs are eliminated.

Who enforces the elimination of tariffs and all that go with it (ensuring no state gives aid to companies or fields in a way that upsets the competition)?

Really simple - we make an agreement, as existed well before the EU. I won't add tariffs to your products if you don't add them to mine. Done. Who enforces it? We both do. If I hear from my importers that your country is now adding a tariff/import tax on a product, then I do the same to you. Why on earth anyone would think it takes an extragovernmental body to do this is baffling...

The UKs involvement in the EU should be a free trade agreement. Full stop. End of discussion.

No central control, no central laws.

Right, and free trade agreements are generally "if you do X, Y and Z then we'll trade with you under $RULES". Well contgratulations you've more or less reinvented the system you've tried to escape from, except that instead of having thins debated with the dubious openness of the EU parliament, you'll have them completely private and beholden to corporate interests like TTIP.

I mean suuuure, we don't have someone "imposing" rules on us, er... unless those are a condition of continuing to trade freely. Then we'll have the option of acquiescing or leaving, just like now.

The European Court of Justice (whose rulings the UK must abide by to remain part of the EU) has decided that the UK cannot deny prisoners the vote and any EU citizen has the right to censor search engine results concerning them throughout the whole EU. Can you tell me why this kind of interference in domestic matters is required for a trade deal? What other trade deal requires citizens to be subject to the rulings of a foreign court?

The European Court of Justice (whose rulings the UK must abide by to remain part of the EU) has decided that the UK cannot deny prisoners the vote and any EU citizen has the right to censor search engine results concerning them throughout the whole EU.

So? The EU court of justice has also decided things going against our government but very much in favour of citizens of the EU. One of the founding principles of justice is that the lawmakers and the judges are in

I do find it ironic that you say "No central control, no central laws", given that the UK has one of the most centralised unitary governments in the world. Nearly half the Scottish voters expressed their displeasure about this recently, and if you go for a night out in Manchester you won't find a lot of positive things said about London.

Ask the UKIP's favourite role models from Norway and Switzerland how it's going having just a free trade agreement with the EU:

The "halo effect" makes it disturbingly difficult to asses a person's complete abilities accurately. Because Hawking is a leading physicist, an extremely articulate and well-loved communicator, and a very brave and determined person, we are tempted to believe that he is godlike in every way. But remember that superb ability in one field - such as theoretical physics - does tend to come at the expense of broad experience in other fields, if only because one person only has a given amount of time and attentio

What is more likely is that the rest of the EU will take "revenge" on the UK for leaving by imposing tariffs and travel restrictions for UK people and good going into Europe. This would, of course, be childish and spiteful, and would probably hurt themselves as much as it would the UK, but I can still see them doing it.

Fine. They have already tried that on Russia, and so far it is doing Russia a whole lot of good, while severely harming European economies. (Not that the politicians care what happens to working people or businesses).

If and when the EU politicians decide to lift their sanctions against Russia, it is quite likely that the Russians themselves will insist on maintaining them.

What is more likely is that the rest of the EU will take "revenge" on the UK for leaving by imposing tariffs and travel restrictions for UK people and good going into Europe.

You're not a member of the club, you're not getting the club's benefits. Nothing spiteful about that buddy. I don't see why the EU would waste its time partnering on science with an island of xenophobes sliding into further irrelevancy.

Besides, with the government in charge there, you won't be seeing much public spending on science, so it won't matter a whole lot anyway.

Further proof that "science" has ceased to involve the scientific method.

Most people know Dwight D. Eisenhower for his speech on the military-industrial complex. [msu.edu] Its a tragedy that most people just know a sound-bite or two of the speech, however. This epic speech not only warn of the dangers of a military-industrial complex, but also of a scientific technological elite.

A excerpt:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.